in the case of the Bayonetta 2 review, I personally feel that the sexualization of the main character ruined the immersion for the reviewer.
Mechanically, it's a sound game. Stroyline wise, it's a solid game. BUT, the sexual aspect is so blatant and in your face that it ruins the experience.
I've honestly had games like that, where one aspect of it completely turned me away from the game. (Bayonetta 2 being one of them, for the reasons I list above.) So,I honestly agree with the 7.5/10 score, because the sexual aspect is actually ruining two parts of the game: my comfort level, and my immersion in the game. So, I would consider that aspect of it having a proper place in a review of a game, especially since my experience with it is far from isolated.
well, let's approach the problem from the assumption that both prayer and scientology are wrong. I've usually found that the best way to evaluate harms (both actual and potential) is to look at the worst case scenario:
In prayer's case, you have a placebo effect that has you feel good about yourself and gives you the feeling that someone is listening to you.
In Scientology's case, you have given thousands of dollars to an organization that actively tells you to ostracize yourself from your friends and family, and you have told every dirty secret you have to said organization so that they can blackmail you into following them some more. Plus the fact of what you have heard happens to people HAVE left: harassment, public humiliation, and attempted kidnappings. And, yes, the placebo effect that has you feel good about yourself and the feeling that someone is listening to you.
Now, then, going from the premise that both are wrong, what actual harm does prayer cause, compared to Scientology?
Onto the subject of lying being moral or not, what makes something moral? Well, since we can't give a deity the credit (as you would then ask us to prove said deity's existence) we can only go by what Society has told us: that lying is morally wrong.
If your going to continue to say that is a stupid reason, then I have one question: if believing something solely because society says it is, why do we believe anything society tells us?
I have a theory: Societies of the past have found that lying to someone causes them harm, and as such created moral codes that included not lying to people, codes that we have continued to this day.
Question: Do you feel the need to contradict someone that you feel agrees with you?
Now, if you can give an example of a lie that a) you know for a fact to be a lie, b) will not be reasonably discovered by other people to be a lie, and c) has absolutely zero downsides and in fact helps people, then we can contend further on that subject.
what he is ACTUALLY saying (if you would have bothered to read the content of his posts) is that BELIEVING a lie can be a net benefit. He has said that the act of TELLING a lie is morally wrong, but that there is nothing morally wrong with BELIEVING a lie, so long as that lie is not, in fact, proven to be a lie.
And, if I may extrapolate a bit, if you truly believe something (i.e. prayer) and you tell someone else that thing, then you are not lying, because you believe what you are telling them is the truth. You are not lying to them, you are just wrong, if it comes out that what you are telling them is in fact inaccurate.
and I am asking why you say that you believe lying is morally acceptable. I am doing the exact same thing you are doing with Bitterroot: asking you to justify your stance. why is that wrong? why is it acceptable when you do it, but not me?
I also notice that you have nothing to say on me stating you actually haven't made an argument, just a contradiction.
Highroller, your statement was not an argument: it was a simple contradiction. Please, give a reason WHY telling a lie is morally acceptable (especially considering that society seems to disagree with that statement, making "telling a lie is morally wrong" the default position and placing the onus of Burden of Proof on you.)
Simply stating "I disagree that telling a lie is morally wrong" is not in any way an argument. Bitterroot has been giving you well-founded and thought out reasons for his stance, and the entirety of your response is "why is telling a lie morally wrong?"
He has given reasons (Society deems it wrong, the general intent of telling a lie is to deceive someone for your own gain). Now it is YOUR turn to give REASONS why telling a lie is not morally wrong.
So, I ask you: why is telling a lie morally acceptable?
Bitterroot, I would just like to point out that that survey only hit 2200 people.
On the subject, my background is that I am a Mormon who was raised by an Ex-Atheist and an Ex-Catholic. (crazy, I know.)
When I'm praying, it's not just to ask for things, or to give thanks, it's sort of like a verbal journal entry. I talk about my wants, my fears, how my day went, what that strange spot on the desk at school reminds me of, things like that. God doesn't just want us to ask him for things, he's our Spiritual Father, he wants us to talk with him, not just at him.
no, that's not it at all: are Korra and Asami the first non hetero couple to exist in the world (including outside of the storyline), or is it a thing that, because of bending, sexual orientation wasn't that big a deal to people, and you could legitimately be in a relationship like that and people wouldn't bat an eye.
Slightly off topic, but Warhammer actually DID have a God of Atheism, iirc. He got stronger the fewer believers he had, but had to have believers to exist, or something weird like that.
I like how you started Genesis 2 with verse 4, forgetting that the chapter is not a separate writing from Genesis 1.
If you would read the first three verses of Genesis 2, then you would see that it's not a separate story, but a continuation of Genesis 1. As is the standard with CHAPTERS in a BOOK.
Genesis 2:1 is particularly interesting as it states: Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. (KJV)
Now, if you were looking at this as two separate stories, then that might seem like a nice introduction.
But they are NOT separate stories, rather a continuation of the same story, as Verse 2 points out: And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. (KJV)
Now, if this were a separate story, why say that right at the beginning?
Verse 3 is God sanctifying the Seventh Day, as stated: And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. (KJV)
Now we get into what you are calling the "second creation story", except that as I have pointed out, this is still the same story: These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, (KJV)
This sounds like the start of a second creation, except for these lovely passages from Genesis 1:
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
He made Heaven and Earth on the first day, in one day. Not so much of a contradiction anymore, eh?
Then, Genesis 2:5 gives us this: And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
Now, we get a little convoluted: why repeat this? Well, if we go to Genesis 1:27 it states: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Seems a bit repetitive, yes? why say essentially the same thing three times? Because he is trying to drive home a point. This is not a "second creation", this is a review of the FIRST creation, (reviews like this happen quite often in the Bible.) or if you want to get REALLY weird, the Physical Creation while the first "story" was a spiritual creation.
After all, everything existed Spiritually before Physically, yes? Why else would there be stories in Heaven that took place before Creation?
Also, I think that by that point, Kuvira had a bit of an inflated ego: She had just stopped their escape attempt, had not really met with any opposition to her plans of uniting the Earth Kingdom, and even less opposition to her reforming it into the Earth Empire.
She's essentially won, in her viewpoint, and this is just icing on the cake: Zhu Li leaving Varrick for her, when Zhu Li says that she wants "to follow the world's greatest mind".
Although, (moving back a bit) I want to point out the pure, subtle genius in the ending of Korra and Kuvira's fight: Kuvira was about to kill Korra, which would restart the Avatar Cycle. What is the next element in the cycle? an Earthbender. What is the likelyhood that the next Avatar is born under the reign of Kuvira?
Whether or not Kuvira wanted it to end that way, that was a bit of a looking back "oh, god that was close." moment.
At least, that's my prediction: Toph comes in, kicks ass (I mean, come on, she had an easier time against Korra than Kuvira did!) and it becomes this huge man hunt for her by the Earth Empire.
if the deck is suitably janky, I'll give it a name.
Right now, my RB Knight Zombie tribal is called "Chivalry Never Dies", and my Legacy Reanimator is named "80s Horror" because of all the cheap animation.
But, I usually save the naming for my EDH decks. (i.e. Snakes on a Plane and that sort of thing.)
ugh.. I think that hole might be beyond fixing at this point. that might change, but not for a while.
Sucks, I know, but I don't know what I can do about it.
Anyway... ONTO TODAYS EPISODE!
it's weird... I think that Korra might have a spiritual block on her, or something, or her Avatar state is trying to tell her something. But that fight with Kuvira seemed a bit contrived, and I honestly felt that Kuvira did better than she had any right to. I mean, come on! it's the freaking AVATAR!
But, she's been out of action for 3 years and probably is out of practice...
Mechanically, it's a sound game. Stroyline wise, it's a solid game. BUT, the sexual aspect is so blatant and in your face that it ruins the experience.
I've honestly had games like that, where one aspect of it completely turned me away from the game. (Bayonetta 2 being one of them, for the reasons I list above.) So,I honestly agree with the 7.5/10 score, because the sexual aspect is actually ruining two parts of the game: my comfort level, and my immersion in the game. So, I would consider that aspect of it having a proper place in a review of a game, especially since my experience with it is far from isolated.
In prayer's case, you have a placebo effect that has you feel good about yourself and gives you the feeling that someone is listening to you.
In Scientology's case, you have given thousands of dollars to an organization that actively tells you to ostracize yourself from your friends and family, and you have told every dirty secret you have to said organization so that they can blackmail you into following them some more. Plus the fact of what you have heard happens to people HAVE left: harassment, public humiliation, and attempted kidnappings. And, yes, the placebo effect that has you feel good about yourself and the feeling that someone is listening to you.
Now, then, going from the premise that both are wrong, what actual harm does prayer cause, compared to Scientology?
Onto the subject of lying being moral or not, what makes something moral? Well, since we can't give a deity the credit (as you would then ask us to prove said deity's existence) we can only go by what Society has told us: that lying is morally wrong.
If your going to continue to say that is a stupid reason, then I have one question: if believing something solely because society says it is, why do we believe anything society tells us?
I have a theory: Societies of the past have found that lying to someone causes them harm, and as such created moral codes that included not lying to people, codes that we have continued to this day.
Question: Do you feel the need to contradict someone that you feel agrees with you?
Now, if you can give an example of a lie that a) you know for a fact to be a lie, b) will not be reasonably discovered by other people to be a lie, and c) has absolutely zero downsides and in fact helps people, then we can contend further on that subject.
what he is ACTUALLY saying (if you would have bothered to read the content of his posts) is that BELIEVING a lie can be a net benefit. He has said that the act of TELLING a lie is morally wrong, but that there is nothing morally wrong with BELIEVING a lie, so long as that lie is not, in fact, proven to be a lie.
And, if I may extrapolate a bit, if you truly believe something (i.e. prayer) and you tell someone else that thing, then you are not lying, because you believe what you are telling them is the truth. You are not lying to them, you are just wrong, if it comes out that what you are telling them is in fact inaccurate.
I also notice that you have nothing to say on me stating you actually haven't made an argument, just a contradiction.
Simply stating "I disagree that telling a lie is morally wrong" is not in any way an argument. Bitterroot has been giving you well-founded and thought out reasons for his stance, and the entirety of your response is "why is telling a lie morally wrong?"
He has given reasons (Society deems it wrong, the general intent of telling a lie is to deceive someone for your own gain). Now it is YOUR turn to give REASONS why telling a lie is not morally wrong.
So, I ask you: why is telling a lie morally acceptable?
On the subject, my background is that I am a Mormon who was raised by an Ex-Atheist and an Ex-Catholic. (crazy, I know.)
When I'm praying, it's not just to ask for things, or to give thanks, it's sort of like a verbal journal entry. I talk about my wants, my fears, how my day went, what that strange spot on the desk at school reminds me of, things like that. God doesn't just want us to ask him for things, he's our Spiritual Father, he wants us to talk with him, not just at him.
Also, not sure if this discussion should be spoilered... lol.
If you would read the first three verses of Genesis 2, then you would see that it's not a separate story, but a continuation of Genesis 1. As is the standard with CHAPTERS in a BOOK.
Genesis 2:1 is particularly interesting as it states: Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. (KJV)
Now, if you were looking at this as two separate stories, then that might seem like a nice introduction.
But they are NOT separate stories, rather a continuation of the same story, as Verse 2 points out: And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. (KJV)
Now, if this were a separate story, why say that right at the beginning?
Verse 3 is God sanctifying the Seventh Day, as stated: And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. (KJV)
Now we get into what you are calling the "second creation story", except that as I have pointed out, this is still the same story: These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, (KJV)
This sounds like the start of a second creation, except for these lovely passages from Genesis 1:
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
He made Heaven and Earth on the first day, in one day. Not so much of a contradiction anymore, eh?
Then, Genesis 2:5 gives us this: And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
Now, we get a little convoluted: why repeat this? Well, if we go to Genesis 1:27 it states: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Seems a bit repetitive, yes? why say essentially the same thing three times? Because he is trying to drive home a point. This is not a "second creation", this is a review of the FIRST creation, (reviews like this happen quite often in the Bible.) or if you want to get REALLY weird, the Physical Creation while the first "story" was a spiritual creation.
After all, everything existed Spiritually before Physically, yes? Why else would there be stories in Heaven that took place before Creation?
She's essentially won, in her viewpoint, and this is just icing on the cake: Zhu Li leaving Varrick for her, when Zhu Li says that she wants "to follow the world's greatest mind".
Although, (moving back a bit) I want to point out the pure, subtle genius in the ending of Korra and Kuvira's fight: Kuvira was about to kill Korra, which would restart the Avatar Cycle. What is the next element in the cycle? an Earthbender. What is the likelyhood that the next Avatar is born under the reign of Kuvira?
Whether or not Kuvira wanted it to end that way, that was a bit of a looking back "oh, god that was close." moment.
At least, that's my prediction: Toph comes in, kicks ass (I mean, come on, she had an easier time against Korra than Kuvira did!) and it becomes this huge man hunt for her by the Earth Empire.
Anyway, I think Varrick just invented the EMP.
Right now, my RB Knight Zombie tribal is called "Chivalry Never Dies", and my Legacy Reanimator is named "80s Horror" because of all the cheap animation.
But, I usually save the naming for my EDH decks. (i.e. Snakes on a Plane and that sort of thing.)
I wish that you wouldn't grant this wish.
Sucks, I know, but I don't know what I can do about it.
Anyway... ONTO TODAYS EPISODE!
But, she's been out of action for 3 years and probably is out of practice...